Skip to main content

Full text of "Port of San Francisco/southern waterfront improvements : draft initial study"

See other formats


3 1223 03629 9205 

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING 450 McAllister street • san francisco. California 94102 



^ :....J 

Date of this Notice: June 21, 1985 

Lead Agency: City and County of San Francisco, Department of City Planning 

450 McAllister Street - 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 

Agency Contact Person: Catherine Bauman 


Telephone: (415) .558-5261 



Project Sponsor: Port of San Francisco 
Project Contact Person: Randall Rossi 

94/96, Islais Creek 
4304 lot 2 & 4502A lot 2 

(415) 391-8000 




Not to bt taken from the Library 


is determination is based upon the criteria of the 

ary for Resources, Sections 15063 (Initial Study), 15064 

t), and 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), and 

mented in the Environmental Evaluation (Initial Study) for 

II I ^ U I' UUX.*! 

Deadline for Filing of an Appeal of this Determination to the City Planning 
Commission: July 1, 1985 . 

An appeal requires: 1) a letter specifying the grounds for the appeal, and; 

2) a $35.00 filing fee. 

7.5442 ^ /^,/ , //^ / 


BARBARA W. SAHM, Environmental Rev lew OFfi cer 


3 1223 03629 9205 





Date of this Notice: June 21, 1985 

Lead Agency: City and County of San Francisco, Department of City Planning 

450 McAllister Street - 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102 

Agency Contact Person: Catherine Bauman Telephone: (415) 558-5261 

Project Title: 85.123E 

San Francisco Container Terminal 

Project Sponsor: Port of San Francisco 

Project Contact Person: Randall Rossi 

(415) 391-8000 

Project Address: p^-g^ p^.^^ g^/gg^ j^^^.^ ^^^^1^ 
Assessor's Block(s) and Lot(s): 4304 lot 2 & 4502A lot 2 
City and County: San Francisco 

Project Description: 


IMPACT REPORT IS REQUIRED. This determination is based upon the criteria of the 
Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources, Sections 15063 (Initial Study), 15064 
(Determining Significant Effect), and 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), and 
the following reasons, as documented in the Environmental Evaluation (Initial Study) for 
the project, which is attached. 

Deadline for Filing of an Appeal of this Determination to the City Planning 
Commission: July 1, 1985 . 

An appeal requires: 1) a letter specifying the grounds for the appeal, and; 

2) a $35.00 filing fee. 

BARBARA W. SAHM, Environmental Rev i ew Offi cer 


ER5 6/85 

3 1223 03629 9205 


June 21, 1985 


The Port of San Francisco proposes to modernize its container handling 
facilities along the southern waterfront in the area of the North and South 
Container Terminals (formerly Pier 80/Army Street Terminal and Piers 94-96, 
respectively) . 

Improvements are being proposed for the San Francisco Container Terminal 
('''SFCT) in order to accommodate projected demands of shipping lines now using 
SECT facilities and to maintain the Port's current market share of ^con- 
tainer cargo. 

The North Container Terminal is a 69-acre site on all of Assessor's Block 
4304. The South Terminal is approximately 160 acres on all of Assessor's 
Block 4502A. Both sites are active port terminals in an M-2 (Heavy Indus- 
trial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, 

The Port is proposing three cargo handling facility improvements and a 
waterfront open space area in two phases. The location of the existing and 
proposed facilities is shown on figures 1 - 4 on pages 3-6, 

Phase I (see Figure 3, page 5): 

-Modernization of the North Terminal into a full container cargo 
facility with three container tberths and one '^'combination berth by 
demolishing two cargo sheds (approximately 400,000 sq. ft. total), 

* Please refer to the glossary located at the end of this Initial Study 
for definitions of terms used throughout this study. Terms defined in the 
glossary are marked with a daggar (''') at first use. 


Dent ^""^iSco (C;,7 ^ 

releveling the terminal yard, improving "'"backland area for container 
storage, installation of five new container cranes (three of them 
replacing existing, smaller cranes) and container retrieval equip- 
ment, construction of two 4,000 sq. ft. buildings for use by long- 
shoremen and shipping clerks, and a new entrance gate. No new 
berths would be constructed; one existing "^breakbulk terminal would 
be converted to a container terminal. Improvements are designed to 
enable this terminal to handle existing ''"throughput more efficiently. 

- A fixed bridge across Islais Creek, extending Illinois Street south- 
wards to join the North and South Terminals, to expedite rail and 
truck trips between the two terminals and to keep short-haul traffic 
off city streets. 

- A permanent "'"Intermodal Container Transfer Facility {''"ICTF) in the 
South Terminal to provide the Port with direct rail access for '''land- 
bridge movement of containers {"'"COFC and "'"TOFC) . Facilities would 
include a 100,000 sq. ft. container freight station {'''CFS) and a new 
entrance gate complex, 

- an 11-acre waterfront site (Pier 98) dedicated to public access, 
recreation and open space. 

Phase II (see Figure 4, page 6): 

- addition of two container berths along the south side of Islais Creek, 
through conversion of an existing ''"break bulk berth and addition of a 
new berth, and installation of four new container cranes. Some 
existing fill on the south side of Islais Creek would be removed. 



■ mam 












Significant Effects 

Some of the effects that would be generated by the proposed project could be 
significant. Impacts that require further analysis in an EIR are: 

° Land use effects of closing the Islais Creek channel west of Third 

Street as a navigable waterway. 
° Increased truck and train trips to and from the site in relation 
to traffic flow and circulation patterns; increased parking 

** Project transportation-generated air quality effects. 
° Effects on Bay wildlife including endangered species. 

Potential water quality impacts of removal of existing fill from 

the south side of Islais Creek. 
° Cumulative project-rel ated impacts. 

** Potential safety hazards from methane released by fill under the 

Insignificant Effects 

Some environmental effects would either be insignificant or would be miti- 
gated through measures incorporated into the project design. These require 
no further environmental analysis and will not be addressed in the EIR, 

Popul ation : No housing would be displaced. Employment generation would be 
up to about 100 jobs and would not create a substantial demand for new 



Utilities/Public Services : Increased demand for public services and utili- 
ties attributable to the proposed project would not require additional 
employees or expansion of existing utility facilities. 

Geology and Seismic Hazards : Potential problems of development on landfill 
would be mitigated to insignificance by compliance with the recommendations 
resulting from site-specific geotechnical investigations. 

Water Quality : No surface water or water supplies would be affected. Bay 
waters would not be substantially affected by the increase in ship calls or 
the dredging of Islais Creek. Runoff from impervious surfaces would 
increase, but not significantly in comparison to the existing setting. 

Hazards : The project would not be affected by hazardous land uses. An 
evacuation and emergency response plan would be developed by the project 
sponsor as part of the project. No change in the proportion of hazardous 
cargo handled is expected. 

Energy : Increased energy consumption on-site would result from diesel and 
gasoline fuel use by new container crane and yard equipment. Off-site 
energy use would result from additional truck, rail and ship cargo movement. 
A shift of some trips from truck to rail would result in increased energy 
efficiency per unit of cargo handled and a net decrease in energy consump- 
tion by Pacific Coast shipping activities. 

Cultural : The project site rests entirely on Bay fill. Most of the fill 
has been placed since 1960. The probability of encountering cultural 
resources during construction would be limited. The project sponsor has 
included a mitigation measure addressing this potential impact. 




AND PLANS Not Applicable Discussed 

1. Discuss any variances, special 

authorizations, or change proposed 
to the City Planning Code or Zoning 

Map, if applicable. X 

*2. Discuss any conflicts with the 

Comprehensive Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco, if applicable. 

*3. Discuss any conflicts with any other 
adopted environmental plans and goals 
of the City or Region, if applicable. 

The project would comply with Objective 5 of the Commerce and Industry 
Element, Comprehensive Plan of the City and County of San Francisco, "Realize 
San Francisco's full maritime potential," (page 18). Modernization of 
existing port facilities and establishment of the Pier 98 public access area 
would implement Policy 1, "Develop and implement a comprehensive long-range 
maritime development program for the Port," by increasing the efficiency 
and lowering the cost of goods movement. Policy 2, "Focus investment on 
those Port features in which San Francisco has a natural advantage. Create 
competitive advantages by providing more cost efficient freight handling 
facilities," would be implemented by improvement of facilities associated 
with natural deep water access appropriate for larger cargo vessels and 
improving cost efficiency of freight handling facilities. Policy 8, "En- 
courage maritime activity which complements visitor activity and resi- 
dent recreation," would be implemented through development of the public 
Bay access facilities at Pier 98. 

The overall goal of the Central Waterfront Plan of the Comprehensive Plan 
"is to create in the Central Waterfront area a physical and economic envi- 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect 


ronment conducive to the retention and expansion of San Francisco's indus- 
trial and maritime activities." (page 16). The proposed project would con- 
form to Land Use Objective 1, "Strengthen and expand land uses essential to 
realizing the economic potential of the Central Waterfront." Modernization 
of container facilities would permit intensification of existing cargo 
handling activity in conformance with Land Use Policy 1, "Encourage the 
intensification and expansion of industrial and maritime uses." No conver- 
sion to nonmari time-related land use would be involved in the project, in 
conformity with Policy 2, "Preserve and protect the Central Waterfront area 
as a land base for San Francisco industry. Prevent the conversion of land 
needed for industrial or maritime activity to non-industrial use." Present 
use of Islais Creek for anchorage west of the new bridge, some of it illegal , 
by some tow boats, barges and fishing boats would cease. 

Selection of a development configuration avoiding unstable fill and min- 
imizing new Bay fill would implement Policy 3, "Promote new development 
which has minimal adverse environmental consequences..." 

The project would implement the Central Waterfront Plan Maritime Objective 
to "Retain and expand maritime activity along the Central Waterfront." 
Retention of cargo facilities at the North Terminal would be in accordance 
with Policy 1, "Retain all existing maritime general cargo facilities along 
the Central Waterfront (Piers 48, 50, 70, and 80)." Modernization of faci- 
lities would conform to Policy 3, "Encourage the expansion and moderniza- 
tion of maritime cargo handling facilities and the development of container 
facilities along the Central Waterfront." 

The ICTF would implement Central Waterfront Plan Transportation Objective 
1, "Improve the accessibility of the Central Waterfront," Policy 6, "Pro- 


vide adequate rail and truck access to all maritime piers." The new bridge 
across Islais Creek to provide improved movement between the North and 
South Terminals would implement Transportation Objective 2, "Improve Trans- 
portation conditions within the Central Waterfront." Cargo handling acti- 
vities would be visible from the Pier 98 public access area in conformity 
with the Central Waterfront Plan Recreation and Open Space Objective, 
"Provide public access and recreational opportunities along the shoreline," 
Policy 3, "Provide public overlooks, viewing areas, and open spaces with 
convenient access in areas of maritime activity." 

Modernization of the North Terminal (Pier 80) would be in accordance with 
Central Waterfront Plan Islais Creek Area Objective 1, "Expand maritime 
activity in the Islais Creek area," Policy 1, "Continue to modernize Pier 
80 as a major general cargo facility." Elimination of the existing low 
level of maritime use of the west end of Islais Creek would not be in accor- 
dance with Islais Creek Area Objective 1 but would comply with Policy 1 
under this Objective by assisting in the modernization of Pier 80 as a gene- 
ral cargo facility. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan for the City 
and County of San Francisco will not be discussed in the EIR. 

The project would be in conformity with the MTC/BCDC Seaport Plan designa- 
tion of the project site as a port priority use area for development of 
container terminals (page 29). By modernizing existing facilities the pro- 
ject would conform to the goals of the Seaport Plan to: "Provide for the 
efficient use of finite physical and fiscal resources consumed in develop- 
ing marine terminals." (page 1). The ICTF would follow the Seaport Plan's 
goal of providing "integrated and improved surface transportation facilities 
between San Francisco Bay ports and other regional transportation systetns." 


The project would not interfere with implementation of the BCDC Special Area 
Plan No. 1 Policies 1 and 2 for Islais Creek West of Third Street, "The south 
side of Islais Creek Channel west of the Third Street Bridge should be 
developed for public access and waterfront recreation as a public esplanade 
and viewing area" and "Limited development, preferably Bay-oriented commer- 
cial recreation, should be permitted on the south side of Islais Creek 
channel, provided it is incidental to public access and water-related rec- 
reation and does not obstruct public access." The view across the Islais 
Channel would change due to loss of access for moving vessels west of the 
new bridge. Compliance with the BCDC Bay Plan and the Special Area Plan 
will be discussed in the EIR. 


1. Land Use . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Disrupt or divide the physical 
arrangement of an established 

community? X X 

b. Have any substantial impact upon 
the existing character of the 

vicinity? _X_ _X_ 

Modernization of Port facilities in an area already zoned for heavy indus- 
try would not have a substantial impact on the existing character of the 
vicinity nor would it disrupt any established communities. 

All construction proposed would take place within property under the juris- 
diction of the Port of San Francisco. Port property is bounded by indus- 
trial development to the west and San Francisco Bay to the east. The main 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 


active maritime use on Islais Creek west of the Third Street bridge is a 
copra (coconut oil) processing plant that is proposed to be served by pipe- 
line from a berth on Islais Creek east of the Third Street bridge. This 
facility currently receives one shipment of oil every one to two months. 
Any illegally anchored houseboats west of the new bridge would be displaced 
or precluded from moving out of Islais Creek. Possible land and water use 
effects stemming from the closure of this waterway west of the proposed new 
bridge will be examined in the EIR, 

2. Visual Quality . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Have a substantial, demonstrable 

negative aesthetic effect? X X 

b. Substantially degrade or obstruct 
any scenic view or vista now observed 

from public areas? X X 

c. Generate obtrusive light or glare 
substantially impacting other 

properties? X X 

As both terminals are currently active cargo handling facilities and all 
improvements proposed would continue existing terminal operations within 
existing terminal boundaries and be located in an industrial area, there 
would not be a substantial negative aesthetic effect. This issue will not 
be discussed in the EIR. 

With the exception of the Third Street bridge, views of the project area of 
the Port and the adjacent Bay typically occur at distances of over one-half 
mile from the water's edge. The site is over one mile from higher eleva- 
tions and residential neighborhoods to the west and southwest. Removal of 
the 40 ft, high sheds at the North Terminal would increase views of the 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 


Bay; however, this would only be observable from points on Port property 
and from the immediate Third Street vicinity. New views opened up as a 
result of shed removal would be ephemeral, because stacks of containers 
would occupy the areas currently covered by the sheds. New views of the 
Bay and the Port would become accessible from the proposed public access on 
Pier 98. No futher analysis of views will be provided in the EIR. 

New light standards would be placed in the ICTF, in newly surfaced areas of 
the North Terminal and where pier sheds would be removed on the North Termi- 
nal . The increase in light would not be noticeable from the nearest resi- 
dential neighborhoods with a view of the Port, such as Potrero Hill and 
Hunters Point. This subject will not be covered in the EIR. 

3. Popul ation . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Induce substantial growth or concen- 
tration of population? X X 

*b. Displace a large number of people 
(involving either housing or 
empl oyment) ? 

c. Create a substantial demand for 

additional housing in San Francisco, 
or substantially reduce the housing 

Existing operations at the North and South Terminals involve about 100 per- 
manent jobs (about 65 at North Terminal and 40 at South Terminal). When 
ships are being loaded and unloaded the total number of persons working 
goes to 250 (about 150 at North Terminal and 100 at South Terminal). This 
increase is due to the number of longshoremen hired by the terminal opera- 
tors on a day-to-day basis. Modernization of these terminals would result 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, nonmally significant effect, 


in the addition of about 40 permanent jobs and about 100 part-time long- 
shoremen's jobs.^ The number of these jobs has dwindled in San Francisco 
during the last two decades as a result of increases in more efficient 
"^container cargo handling (a less labor-intensive activity than traditional 
"•"break bulk cargo) and of the decline of the City's historic market share 
of cargo. The trend to increased containerization of cargo will continue 
and would partially off-set the increases in jobs from the proposed pro- 
ject. Employment generation will not be further discussed in the EIR. 

No housing would be displaced by the project. If project-related job 
generation were not off-set, and if it is assumed that about 30% of both 
permanent and temporary new workers currently reside outside of San Fran- 
cisco and would desire to move in, 2 a demand for a maximum of 45 housing 
units would be created as a result of new employment generated by the 
project. Estimated housing demand in San Francisco for the five-year 
period 1982 - 1986 is a minimum of 15,000;^ 45 units would represent a 
maximum of about 0.2% of expected housing demand. This would not be a 
significant effect and this issue will not be discussed further in the EIR. 


1. Northern terminal present employment estimates from Gene Blazek, Vicker- 
man»Zachary»Miller, consultants to the Port of San Francisco; Southern 
terminal estimates from Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, 
Operator of Pier 96, telephone conversations of May 1, 1985, 

2. The Downtown Plan EIR, EE 81.3, SCH 84032003, Table IV. D. 2, page IV. D. 4, 
shows that San Francisco residency varies inversely with socioeconomic 
status, ranging from 48.9% for Management/Technical to 82.4% for Hotel 
workers. Since the new port employment would be blue collar, their San 
Francisco residence rate would fall at about 70% on that scale. 

3. Residence Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the City and County of 
San Francisco, 1984, page 1-22. 


4. Transportation/Ci rculation . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Cause an increase in traffic which 
is substantial in relation to the 
existing traffic load and capacity 

of the street system? X X 

b. Interfere with existing transporta- 
tion systems, causing substantial 
alterations to circulation patterns 
or major traffic hazards? 

c. Cause a substantial increase in 
transit demand which cannot be 
accommodated by existing or pro- 
posed transit capacity? 

d. Cause a substantial increase in 
parking demand which cannot be 
accommodated by existing parking 
facil ities? 

The proposed project would increase truck and rail trips to and from the 
SFCT. An increase in "'"unit train trips to and from the ICTF could delay 
traffic along Third Street if train crossings were to occur during peak 
hours. The EIR will discuss traffic and circulation on surrounding streets 
as they relate to the operation of the terminals and the projected increase 
in throughput capability. 

Three MUNI bus lines serve the site vicinity: 15 Third which runs north/ 
south on Third Street adjacent to Port property and lines 19 and 44 which 
start at India Basin Industrial Park and travel north and northwest respec- 
tively across the City. Less than 5% of SFCT workers currently use public 
transit.! Assuming that this percentage might be doubled for new workers by 
an active campaign for use of public transit, a maximum of 12 new bus round 
trips per day would occur. This increase in demand would not have a signifi- 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 


cant effect on demand for MUNI bus service. This issue will not be discus- 
sed in the EIR. 

On-site parking is supplied by the terminal operators to all employees who 
drive. Longshoremen, who are hired on a daily basis, park outside the ter- 
minals in nearby lots and on adjacent streets. No parking shortages cur- 
rently exist outside of either terminal. ^ South Terminal parking would be 
consolidated in two lots (approximately 50 spaces) near the proposed 
entrance facility. No parking spaces would be displaced by the project. 
Parking demand by new employees will be discussed in the EIR. 

The cumulative impacts of increased truck and rail trips on traffic circu- 
lation patterns, transit and pedestrians will be discussed in the EIR. 


1. Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, telephone conversation 
of April 17, 1985. 

2. Ian Back, California Stevedore & Ballast Company, telephone conversa- 
tion of April 16, 1985. 

5. Noise . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Increase substantially the ambient 

noise levels for adjoining areas? X X 

b. Violate Title 25 Noise Insulation 

tion Standards, if applicable? X N/A 

c. Be substantially impacted by 

existing noise levels? X 

Construction activities including excavation, pile driving and dredging 
would temporarily increase noise and would intermittently exceed ambient 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, nonnally significant effect. 


noise levels of 60-65 L^^ in the site vicinity/ The maximum pile driving 
noise level of 105 dBA would be audible over a background of 60 dBA for a 
distance of over two miles during construction where hills or major struc- 
tures did not interfere with noise transmission. 

The closest sensitive noise receptors, such as inhabitants of residential 
development, are located approximately one mile from the site at Hunters 
Point, beyond the PG&E Potrero Power Plant, or on lower Potrero Hill. The 
background noise level along Third Street, between Port property and Inter- 
state 280, is 75 dBA; the level at Interstate 280 is 80 dBA. Pile dri- 
ving could be heard above a background of 75 dBA for a distance of about a 
mile; over a background of 80 for about 3200 feet. Pile driving would 
take place 400 to 1500 feet from the edge of Port property. Maximum pile 
driving noise at the edge of Port property would be 93 dBA. Other construc- 
tion noise would not be expected to be heard beyond Port property. Con- 
struction noise will not be further discussed in the EIR. 

Increased truck traffic in and out of the terminals could elevate noise 
levels in the vicinity and along principal arterial s such as Army and Third 
Streets. An increase in total trips on affected routes of over 25% would 
be required in order to produce a noticeable increase in traffic-related 
noise. 2 The project would result in about 100 truck trips per day above 
present truck traffic levels. The present 24-hour vehicle trip levels on 
Army St. west of Indiana are 12,700 and on Third St. south of Twenty Sixth 
St. are 22,100.^ Making a worst case assumption that all project-related 
trips would pass over Third Street and/or Army Street, even allowing for 
the greater noise generation of trailer trucks than cars, project-generated 
increases in truck traffic would not be great enough to produce an audible 
change in traffic noise. 


The Southern Pacific Railroad currently operates a midnight freight train 
out of San Francisco Monday through Saturday with return to the City at 11 
a.m. the next morning (average about 10 cars, maximum about 20 cars). The 
Port would use this train for small loads and would use 50-car, one-mile- 
long unit trains departing at a similar time in order to meet connecting 
trans-continental trains leaving Los Angeles the following morning. The 
Port does not have control over Southern Pacific train schedules. 

Two trains each night would be expected with full operation of the ICTF, 
doubling the number of train trips. Longer trains would produce noise 
levels similar to those of existing trains which would last longer for each 
train passage because of greater train length. In some cases, the noise 
level would decrease because the lubrication mechanism used to reduce fric- 
tion on some new types of cars also reduces noise generation. This would 
not represent a substantial difference from the existing setting. Noise 
impacts of train traffic will not be covered in the EIR. 

1. Environmental Protection Element, Comprehensive Plan of the City and 
County of San Francisco, 1974, pp. 16-17. 

2. A doubling of automobile traffic is required to produce an increase in 
noise level of about 3 dBA, the minimum audible change in noise level. 
FEIR for the West Side Transport/Storage Project, Vol. II, Appendices, 
EE 75.304, SCH 77052347, 1977, p. 30. Since trucks are noisier than 
automobiles a smaller increase is required to produce the same noise 
increase produced by cars. 

3. February 16, 1983, count on Army St, west of Indiana St.: 8,500 east- 
bound trips and 4235 westbound trips; May 3, 1983, count on Third St. 
south of 26th St.: 12,108 northbound trips and 10,018 southbound trips. 
Stanley Chin, San Franciso Department of Public Works, Traffic Engin- 
eering, telephone conversation of June 4, 1985. 


6. Ai r Qual 1ty/C1 imate . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Violate any ambient air quality 
standard or contribute substan- 
tially to an existing or projected 

air quality violation? X X 

*b. Expose sensitive receptors to 

substantial pollutant concentrations? 

c. Permeate its vicinity with objec- 
tionable odors? 

d. Alter wind, moisture or temperature 
(including sun shading effects) so 
as to substantially affect public 
areas, or change the climate either 
in the community or region? 

Increased truck, train and ship trips would contribute to a localized 
degradation of air quality along their respective routes and would contri- 
bute to occasional existing air quality violations. Air quality impacts 
will be discussed in the EIR. 

Prevailing winds on the site are from the west and northwest, with the Bay 
immediately downwind of the site. Modifications proposed for the site 
would not significantly alter wind currents in the area nor cast shadows 
over any public areas. These topics will not be discussed further in the 

7. Utilities/Public Services . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Breach published national, state 
or local standards relating to 

solid waste or litter control? X 

*b. Extend a sewer trunk line with 

capacity to serve new development? X X 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 


c. Substantially increase demand for 
schools, recreation or other 

public facilities? X X 

d. Require major expansion of power. 

water, or communications facilities? 

All sewer connections to the site are already in place and new development 
on the terminals would not be of the type that would contribute substan- 
tially to wastewater generation. Thus sewer capacity would not need to be 
expanded to accomodate proposed development. Islais Creek receives sewage 
overflows from 1,700 acres of the City during storms when the City's com- 
bined sewer system cannot handle the flows. Peak storm flows of sewage 
reach 141 gallons per minute; they temporarily lower salinity and raise 
the coliform levels in Islais Creek. 1 Existing sewer overflows would not 
be affected by the project. This subject will not be further discussed in 
the EIR. 

As part of the project. Pier 98 would be dedicated to public access to 
serve open space and recreational needs of the surrounding area. Insignifi- 
cant increases in services would be associated with this development. Ser- 
vices to Pier 98 will not be discussed in the EIR. 

Currently, bridge lifts on Islais Creek number about 230 per year. Because 
the bridge proposed to cross Islais Creek just east of the existing Third 
Street drawbridge would be a fixed crossing, there would be no need for the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) to keep the present bridge in operable 
condition. Staff required to maintain and operate the present bridge also 
service the two drawbriges in China Basin; thus, their employment would 
not be terminated as a result of the closure of upper Islais Creek to 
navigation . 


The Police and Fire Departments have indicated that the proposed project 
would not create any additional demand for their respective services. 2 
Currently there are no unusual problems with the public safety environment 
around the site aside from those created by traffic. Both departments have 
indicated that, in general, improvements to a site lead to better security 
and f i re safety 

No major expansion of power or communication lines would be necessary as a 
result of the project. The Port would underground all power lines cur- 
rently above ground at the North Terminal. This would be done at the 
Port's expense and would not require additional personnel or equipment from 
PG&E. These issues will not be discussed in the EIR. 


1. Hoffman, Roderick W. and Meighan, Richard B., The impact of combined 
sewer overflows from San Francisco on the western shore of Central San 
Francisco Bay, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 56:1277-1287, 

2. Officer Mahoney, Permit Officer, SFPD, Potrero Station and Michael Pat- 
terson, Port Fire Marshal, telephone conversations of April 24, 1985. 

8. Biology . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Substantially affect a rare or 
endangered species of animal or 

plant or the habitat of the species? X X 

*b. Substantially diminish habitat 
for fish, wildlife or plants, 
or interfere substantially with 
the movement of any resident or 
migratory fish or wildlife species? 

c. Require removal of substantial 

numbers of mature, scenic trees? X 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect 


Rare or endangered species may be affected by the dedication of Pier 98 as 
publicly accessible open space. These may include: the Least Tern, the 
Brown Pelican and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, A biological study of the 
area would be made. If biologically sensitive areas or endangered species 
are found, the Port would follow the biologist's recommendations for public 
uses compatible with preservation of biological values. This would mitigate 
potential biological impacts to insignificance and this subject will not be 
di scussed in the EIR. 

9, Geol ogy /Topography , Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Expose people or structures to major 
geologic hazards (slides, subsidence, 

erosion and liquefaction)? X X 

b. Change substantially the topography 
or any unique geologic or physical 

features of the site? X X 

The project area is located entirely on landfill and is prone to subsidence, 
erosion from wave action of Bay waters, and potential tsunami inundation. 
In the event of a 1906 magnitude earthquake the area would be subject to 
violent ground shaking and subsidence. ^ 

The project would be constructed under supervision of California-registered 
structural engineers and would comply with all applicable seismic and life 
safety standards. 

Portions of the South Terminal near the proposed ICTF would be graded, and a 
10 ft. man-made berm^ running roughly parallel to Cargo Way would be leveled. 
At the North Terminal settlement increases towards the Bay. ^ Past differen- 
tial settlement has resulted in damage to a sewer outfall^ passing under the 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 


Pier. Recent settlement damage is currently under investigation, and it is 
expected that repair work would overlap with upgrading of cargo facilities. 
The two construction activities would be coordinated by the Port and the 
Department of Public Works. 

Geologic and seismic impacts will not be further discussed in the EIR. 


1. URS/John A. Bl ume & Associates, San Francisco Seismic Safety Investiga- 
tion, 1974. 

2. Berm: an artificial ridge of earth. 

3. Dames & Moore, Geotechnical Investigation, Army Street Terminal (Pier 
80), San Francisco, California, for the San Francisco Port Commission, 
May 12, 1982. 

4. A force main carrying effluent from the Southeast booster pump station 
on the south side of Islais Creek just west of the existing bridge. 

10. Water . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Substantially degrade water quality, 

or contaminate a public water supply? X X 

*b. Substantially degrade or deplete 
ground water resources, or inter- 
fere substantially with ground 

water recharge? X 

*c. Cause substantial flooding, 

erosion or siltation? X 

Dredging to widen Islais Creek channel would temporarily degrade Bay water 
quality in the site area. Dredging is done regularly to maintain channel 
depth. Impacts, if any, would be expected only in areas not now subject to 
routine maintenance dredging. 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, nonnally significant effect. 


Sediments in Islais Creek contain 37-209 milligram/kilogram dry weight 
(mg/kg) copper, 29-534 mg/kg chromium, 1-63 mg/kg silver, 1-6.5 mg/kg cad- 
mium, 41-882 mg/kg lead, 95-194 mg/kg zinc, 0.2-1.2 mg/kg mercury, 112-130 
mg/kg nickel, and 5.5-11.8 mg/kg of arsenic. These ranges indicate that 
there is considerable variation from place to place within Islais Creek. 
Some of the mercury, and possibly other elements, may be metabolized by 
microorganisms into more toxic forms after suspension in the water as a 
result of dredging activities. This would occur for a few hours or days 
after dredging and would not be expected to produce detectable effects on 
food chains involving human food species. The metals in the sediments are 
derived from street runoff, past ship bottom scraping activities, etc. 
Dredging and disposal of the dredged material (spoils) would require a per- 
mit from the Army Corps of Engineers, which would require testing of the 
material to be dredged in order to determine appropriate methods of dredg- 
ing and a safe disposal site. Dredging and spoils disposal will not be dis- 
cussed in the EIR. 

Pile driving into clean sand would cause temporary local increases in water 
turbidity, which would temporari ly cause organisms in the water to avoid the 
area and swim around it. This subject will not be discussed in the EIR. 

Approximately 50 acres would be newly paved in the South Terminal and ICTF, 
an increase from 140 to 190 paved acres (an increase from 68% paved to 93% 
of the 205 acre site paved), ^ Runoff from paved surfaces impervious to 
water would increase but not substantially in comparison to existing condi- 
tions. Runoff will not be discussed in the EIR. 

The San Francisco Bay/Delta system is affected by such factors as tides, 
current paths, freshwater inflow and urban discharges (waste disposal). 


The interaction of these with any other biological and chemical factors 
leads to the diversity in water quality which exists throughout the Bay. 
Compared to the influence of these factors, the long-term impacts of ter- 
minal development are expected to be small or negligible.'^ 

All ships are required by federal law to pump all waste discharges into 
holding tanks when within the Bay or other ports. Water quality issues 
related to maritime traffic will not be further analyzed in the EIR. 

Removal of some existing fill on the south side of Islais Creek could affect 
water quality in Islais Creek. Potential impacts of removal of this fill 
will be discussed in the EIR. 


1. Analysis of samples collected April 20, 1982; letter of James Salerno, 
Water Quality Chemist, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, San Francisco 
Department of Public Works, April 10, 1985, to Dr. Selina Bendix, Bendix 
Environmental Research, Inc., EIR consultant. 

2. Hoffman, Roderick W. and Meighan, Richard B., The impact of combined 
sewer overflows from San Francisco on the western shore of Central San 
Francisco Bay, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 56: 1277-1287, 

3. Blazick, Eugene M., Project Manager, Vickemian«ZacharyMi 1 ler, memoran- 
dum to Randall S. Rossi, Port of San Francisco, May 31, 1985. 

4. San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan, Final Technical Report , April, 
1982, page 117. 

11. Energy/Natural Resources . Could the project: ]fes No Discussed 

*a. Encourage activities which result 

in the use of large amounts of fuel, 
water, or energy, or use these in 

a wasteful manner? X X 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, nomially significant effect. 


b. Have a substantial effect on the 
potential use, extraction, or 

depletion of a natural resource? X 

By increasing the potential throughput of the SFCT, this project would 
increase the quantity of gas and diesel fuel consumed on-site to operate 
yard equipment as well as off-site energy increases associated with truck, 
rail and ship trips required to move container cargo. 

The relative fuel effectiveness of various means of transportation is: 
truck about 60 ton-miles per gallon (3000 BTU per metric tonne-mile), rail- 
road about 250 ton-miles per gallon (570 BTU per metric tonne-mile), and 
water > 300 ton-miles per gallon (360 BTU per metric tonne-mil e) In- 
creases in the more energy-efficient marine shipping of container cargo 
will take place without regard to changes at the Port of San Francisco. 
The proposed modernization would affect the portion of Pacific Coast ship- 
ping handled by the Port and, therefore, the distribution of energy consump- 
tion for cargo handling among Pacific Coast ports. 

The proposed new facilities would shift some land transportation of cargo 
from truck to rail and would decrease the number of lifting and transfer 
operations per container. Both actions would decrease the average amount 
of energy used per cargo container. 

The proposed project would increase total energy use at the Port of San 
Francisco, decrease the average amount of energy used per cargo container, 
and would not significantly affect the total energy consumed in Pacific 
Coast cargo handling operations. 

Energy impacts will not be discussed further in the EIR. 



1. Gal 1 on/ ton-mi 1 e estimates from information in Grimmer, D. P. & Lusz- 
czynski. Lost Power, Environment, April 1972, p. 15, and Federal Energy 
Information Administration, Energy Conservation indicators, 1983 Annual 
Report, October 1984, p. 67. BTU/tonne-mil e estimates in parentheses from 
Leigh Stamets, California Energy Commission, telephone conversation of 3 May 
1985. The quantitative differences in relative values of the two estimates 
for each mode of transportation result from differences in methodology. 
The methods agree in the qualitative relative efficiency of the three modes 
of transport. 

12. Hazards . Could the project: 

*a. Create a potential public health 
hazard or involve the use, pro- 
duction or disposal of materials 
which pose a hazard to people or 
animal or plant populations in 
the area affected? 

Yes No Discussed 

X X 

*b. Interfere with emergency response 

plans or emergency evacuation plans? X 

c. Create a potentially substantial 

fire hazard? J(_ _X_ 

Currently all fuel is brought to the site via truck and stored above ground. 
Underground storage tanks would be constructed at the North Terminal to 
serve diesel operated machinery such as container cranes, port packers, 
etc. Underground diesel fuel storage tanks may also be installed at the 
ICTF. Any underground tanks would conform to the Sher Act which governs 
construction of underground fuel storage tanks and mandates their inspec- 
tion and maintenance to prevent spills or other mishaps, and to the release 
detection, prevention and corrosion regulations to be issued by the US 
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Public Law 98-616, the 1984 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 


amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These tanks will 
not be discussed in the EIR. 

Methane may be generated by decomposing garbage under the engineered fill. 
This methane would constitute a potential fire and explosion hazard for 
construction operations and buildings on the project site. Methane will be 
di scussed in the EIR. 

A relatively small portion of the container cargo presently handled is 
classified as hazardous under Coast Guard regulations (2% or about 600 con- 
tainers in 19841). xhe percent of hazardous cargo would not be expected to 
change; the absolute amount of hazardous cargo could increase with in- 
creased cargo throughput. The U. S. Department of Transportation and U. S. 
Coast Guard regulate handling, storage and tranportation of hazardous cargo 
under 33 CFR Part 126, 46 CFR and 49 CFR.2 

Worker safety and health are governed by OSHA General Industry standards in 
29 CFR Part 1910, Marine Terminals 29 CFR Part 1917, and Longshoring 29 CFR 
Part 1918, These regulations require that hazardous cargo be identified 
before cargo handling operations begin, that such cargo be earful ly secured 
to prevent accidents and that, in case of accidental spillage or leak, 
employees be removed from the affected area until the nature of the hazard 
is determined and appropriate equipment is available for safe handling and 
disposal of the cargo. The Port has standard procedures for handling 
hazardous cargo. When Port staff ascertain that hazardous cargo is coming 
to the Port or is stored at the Port, the Port Fire Marshal is notified and 
in turn notifies the Coast Guard. 3 



1. Roger Peters, Port of San Francisco, telephone conversation of May 6, 

2. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
Longshoring Industry, OSHA 2232, 1983. p. 24. 

3. Wal Strom, William, Port of San Francisco, Ian Beck, CAlifornia Stevedore 
and Ballast Co., and Peter Klestoff, Stevedoring Services of America, 
telephone conversations of June 5, 1985, 

13. Cultural . Could the project: Yes No Discussed 

*a. Disrupt or adversely affect a pre- 
historic or historic archeol ogical 
site or a property of historic or 
cultural significance to a community 
or ethnic or social group; or a 
pal eontol ogical site except as a 

part of a scientific study? X X 

*b. Conflict with established recrea- 
tional, educational, religious or 
scientific uses of the area? 

c. Conflict with the preservation of 
buildings subject to the provisions 
of Article 10 or (proposed) Article 
11 of the City Planning Code? 

The project site is entirely on fill. The area served as a garbage dump 
and then received engineered fill, most of it after 1960. Project grading 
would affect the top engineered fill layer. Pile driving would take place 
in sand which was emplaced after dredging up to 120 feet down to Bay mud. 
Cultural resources are not expected to be encountered during construction 
because piles would go through clean sand and grading would affect engi- 
neered fill. No excavation is proposed. 

* Derived from State EIR Guidelines, Appendix G, normally significant effect. 


the project sponsor has agreed as part of the project to a mitigation measure 
which addresses this potential impact (see D. Mitigation Measures, page 
31). Issues associated with cultural impacts will not be discussed in the 

C. OTHER . Could the project: 

Require approval of permits from 
City Departments other than the 
Department of City Planning or 
Bureau of Building Inspection, 
or from Regional, State or Federal 


No Discussed 

Permits would be required from the Bay Conservation and Development Commis- 
sion (BCDC). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard 
would have jurisdiction. The Coast Guard would be federal lead agency in 
granting permits for closure of Islais Creek to navigation west of the 
existing Third Street bridge and for construction of a fixed bridge over 
Islais Creek. The Army Corps of Engineers would be a permitting agency for 
Pier 98, the new cranes, and the two new berths on Islais Creek if they 
were to be built. Several other regional and State agencies, such as the 
Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game, 
would comment to the permitting agencies as part of the permitting process. 
Permitting and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction will be discussed in 
the EIR. 


1, If any significant effects have 
been identified, are there ways 
to mitigate them? 

2. Are all mitigation measures 
identified above included in 
the project? 

Yes No N/A Discussed 



1, Architectural and Hi storic Resources . Should evidence of cultural or 
historic artifacts of significance be found during project excavation, the 
Environmental Review Officer and the President of the Landmarks Preserva- 
tion Advisory Board would be immediately notified. The project sponsor 
would employ an archaeologist or other expert to help the Office of Envi- 
ronmental Review determine the significance of the find and whether feasi- 
ble measures, including appropriate security measures, could be implemented 
to preserve or recover such artifacts. The Environmental Review Officer 
would then recommend specific mitigation measures, if necessary, and recom- 
mendations would be sent to the State Office of Historic Preservation. 
Excavation or construction which might damage the discovered cultural 
resources would be suspended for a maximum of four weeks to permit inspec- 
tion, recommendation and retrieval, if appropriate. 

2, Ai r Qual ity . The California Health and Safety Code requires that mea- 
sures be taken to minimize dust generation by watering demolition materials 
and soils. An effective watering program (complete coverage of construc- 
tion area twice daily) can reduce emissions by about 50%. The project 
sponsor would require the contractor to water the site at least twice a 
day, which would reduce airborne construction dust by about 50% and reduce 
the probability of exceeding state and federal standards. 

3, Geol ogy . A Cal i forni a-regi stered struct ural engineer and a geotechnical 
consultant would prepare a detailed foundation and structural design report 
for the project. The project sponsor would construct the project in accor- 
dance with the recommendations of the report pertaining to foundations, 
subsidence and earthquake safety. 


4. Biology . Project sponsor would initiate a biological study of the pro- 
posed Pier 98 public access area and would follow the recommendations of a 
biologist in assuring that, if biologically sensitive areas or areas found 
to support endangered species exist on Pier 98, they would remain undevel- 
oped in the manner of an ecological preserve. This would mitigate the poten- 
biological impacts to insignificance. 

5, Land Use . Construction of a new fixed bridge would prevent ships from 
coming up Islais Creek to the existing copra plant west of the existing 
drawbridge. Installation of a pipeline from the navigable portion of the 
Creek to the plant would provide for continued operation. 

Additional mitigation measures for the project will be discussed in the EIR 
as impacts are identified. 


The following alternatives to the proposed project will be discussed in the 

1. No Project . Conditions on the project site if no improvements were 
made and no modernization of the container handling facilities took place. 

2. 2.5 Acre Parcel Purchase/Addition Along Army Street . Port acquisition 
of a 2.5 acre parcel of land just outside their present boundary along the 
north side of Army Street to be used for truck queuing space and a relo- 
cated entry gate. 

3. Islais Creek Bridge . Movable bridge : A movable bridge on Islais Creek 
with the waterway remaining accessible as at present and continued mainte- 
nance of the existing drawbridge. No bridge : The project with no inter- 
terminal connection except for the City streets currently being used. 


,4.-i^n filtprnative track configurations 
4^ Tr.TF With Diffpppnt. Configuration . Alternative 

for the ICTF inside the South Terminal. 

5 Entranc^.Ga^^ A main entrance to both terminals along 

Street with South Terminal traffic using the interte.inal bridge 
versus the South Terminal having a primary entrance off Cargo Way and the 
Amy Street entrance serving the North Terminal alone. 







Does the project have the potential to degrade 
?he quali?y of the environment, substantially 
lllTe the^abitat of a/is^^or wi 11 e^^^^ 

To eliminate a plant or animal —i y 
reduce the number or restrict the range or a 
rarP or endangered plant or animal, or elimi- 

environmental goals? 

Does the project have possible environmental 
P?fpcts which are individually limited, but 

lufalifery considerable? 
light of past projects, other current pro 
jects, and probable future projects.) 

would the project cause substantial adverse 
effects on human beings, either directiy 

IS there a serious public controversy con- 
cerning the possible environmental effect 
the project? 

Yes No Discussed 

7^-;::;;::^^. Guldemes. Append^ G. non^a,,, significant effect. 



I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on 

the environnent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared by the 
Department of City Planning. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant 

effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect 

in this case because the mitigation measures, numbers , in 

the discussion have been included as part of the proposed project. 
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION wi 1 1 be prepared. 

X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on 
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 

Barbara W. Sahm 
Environmental Review Officer 


Dean L. Macris 

Di rector of PI anning 

Date: June 21 , 1985 



|a£^land: Area inland from container cranes where container cargo can be 

Berth: Area of water adjacent to a wharf or pier in which a vessel docks, 
ine typical length of a modern container berth is 1000 feet. 

^^^9° that is put into, or brought out of a ship's hold in 
small bulk quantities, usually on a pallet or in a cargo net, such as cof- 
fee bananas and paper. Traditional method of cargo handling, usually con- 
ducted along finger piers. 

COFC: Container on flat car. New flat cars would permit four, 40 foot con- 
tainers (stacked two high) on a single rail car for more efficient transpor- 
tation. Ten 40 ft. containers can fit on new 280 foot articulated train 
cars . 

Combination Berth: A berth with facilities that can accommodate a ship car- 
rying container, break bulk and ro/ro cargo. 

Container Cargo: Commodities that are placed in steel containers (20-45 
ft. X 8 ft. X 9.5 ft.) for transport via ship, rail or truck. Containers 
have become the prevalent means of cargo handling in the Pacific basin and 
throughout most of the world. Containers are sturdy, weather-tight "boxes" 
that can be easily stacked either within or on top of a ship and quickly 
transfered to other transportation modes such as truck or train. Contain- 
ers can be refrigerated for transport of perishable items (refers). 

CFS_: Container freight station. A customs secure building/warehouse where 
containers can be opened and unpacked/ repacked or transloaded to a flatbed 
truck as necessary before continuing on to their final destination. 

ICTF: Intermodal container transfer facil ity. A rail yard where containers 
from other modes such as ships and trucks are transfered to rail cars or 
vice versa. 

Intermodal: Between different modes of transportation. State of the art 
cargo movement is predicated upon the quick transfer of containers between 
different shipping modes such as from ship to train or from train to truck. 

SFCT: San Francisco Container Terminal consisting of the North Terminal 
the South Terminal, and the ICTF (which see). 

JOFC: Trailer on flat car. Container plus truck trailer combination that 
ndes as a unit on a flat car in a "piggy-back" arrangement. 

Throughput: The amount of cargo (usually in tons) that can be moved through 
a berth or terminal. Theoretical throughput is determined by a complex 
combination of factors, such as ship size and frequency of arrivals, acres 
of backland for container storage, number of container cranes, and inland 
transport transfer and processing. 


. . •„ A lona train operated «1thout service frills or stops to connect 
'^^^nJt\TX\VJ or^,^. and destination. 


fffice of Inter- 
y/ nmental Management 
fdeari nghouse 
0th Street 
iiento. CA 95814 

Mn Fong 

// Corps of Engineers 

Main Street 
f,i Francisco, CA 94105 

Jjyne Till 
S Coast Guard 
lldg. 51-3 
Jovernment Island 
ilameda. CA 94501 

)r. Teng Chung Wu 

nil Jackson Street, 6040 
3dkland, CA 94607 

Phil Kern 

30 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 


P.O. Box 7310 

San Francisco, CA 94120 

Attn: Darnall W. Reynolds 

District CEQA Coordinator 


P.O. Box 2050 
Oakland, CA 94604 
Attn: Ann Berry 

Calif. Archaeological Survey 
Northwest Information Center 
Dept. of Anthropology 
Sonoma State University 
Rohnert Park, CA 94928 

General Projects Section 
Calif. Air Resources Board 
P.O. Box 2815 
Sacramento, CA 95812 
Attn: Don Rake 

Public Transportation branch 


P.O. Box 7310 

San Francisco, CA 94120 

Attn: Larry Layne 


939 Ellis Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Attn: Irwi n Mussen 

Dennis Faye 

101 Eighth Street 
Oakland, CA 94607 

Div. of Planning & Research 

260 Golden Gate Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Chief Gerald Cull en 

Div. of Planning & Research 

260 Golden Gate Avenue 
San FRancisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Lt. Michael Patterson 

Bureau of Building Insp. 
450 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Franklin Lew 

City Distribution Division 

Water Department 

425 Mason Street 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attn: James Cooney 

Traffic Engineering Division 

460 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 
Attn: Scott Shoaf 

Lin Max 

Cogswell College Library 

600 Stockton Street 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Jean Circiello 

EPA Library 

215 Fremont Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Government Documents Section 
Stanford University Library 
Stanford, CA 94305 

Dora Ng 

Government Publications 
SF STate University 
1630 Holloway Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94132 

Inst, of Govt. Studies 
1209 Moses Hall 
UC Berkeley 
Berkeley. CA 94720 

Hastings College of the La\^ 

200 McAllister Street 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Faith Van Liere 
Documents Library 
City Library - Civic Center 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Grosjean Callaghan Inv. Co. 

1875 Marin Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Reynolds Metals Co. 
P.O. Box 27003 
Richmond, VA 23261 

Richard Morton 
SF Chamber of Commerce 
465 California Street 
San Francisco, CA 94105 

Granex Corp. USA 
1301 Army Street 
San Francisco. CA 94124 

Federated Metals Corp. 

1901 Army Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Richard B. Meyer et al . 

1580 Custer Avenue 

San Francisco. CA 94124 

Victor J. Johnson 

1430 16th Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94122 

Murray G. Cole 

1650 Davidson Avenue 

San Francisco. CA 94124 

Air Filter Sales A Serv. 
1500 Davidson Avenue 
San Francisco. CA 94124 

[ph Ratto 
Army St. 
Francisco, CA 


Crow-Speiker San Carlos etc 

301 Wendell Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

John & Ruth Smith 
50 Wendell Street #4 
San Francisco. CA 94124 

;,an Smith, SF Building & 
/onstruction Trades Council 
m Alabama Street, Room 100 
San Francisco, CA 94110 

Bonelli Enterprises 

101 Cargo Way 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Whittier Chang 

50 Wendell Street #6 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

William & Claire Spencer 

3101 3rd Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Armand & Betty Bosc 

1570 Burke Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Wan-U Imports 

50 Wendell Street #7 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Eugene Garfinkle 
900 Warin Street 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Harold & Jo Ann Worgan 

1550 Evans Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Gino & Premina Wazini 
50 Wendell Street #8 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

Thomas J. Guilfoy 

1234 Howard Street 

San Francisco. CA 94103 

William & Susan Sanchez 

1500 Burke Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Dong Kim & Sun Kyung 
50 Wendell Street #9 
San Francisco. CA 94124 

Martin & John Gaehwiler 
1700 Illinois Street 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

William Banker 

220 Newhall Street 

San Francisco. CA 94124 

Rick & Linda Oer 

50 Wendell Street m 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Habenicht & Howlett 

888 Marin Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Mizono Brothers 

1575 Burke Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Robert & Nancy Berke 
50 Wendell Street #11 
San Francisco. CA 94124 

Joseph Wusto Sons Co. 
1280 Columbus Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94133 

Robert Salvarezza 
1555 Burke Avenue 
San Francisco, CA 94124 

E.G. & K.L. Ekren 

50 Wendell Street #12 

San Francisco. CA 94124 

Occidental Life Ins. Co. 

3201 3rd Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Emily Peck 

151 Wendell Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Bcoadway Wechanical 

200 Jennings Street 
c;an Francisco. CA 94124 

Hsaio Long-Chang & Fei Feng 
50 Wendell Street #1 
san Francisco, CA 94124 

Wen Liao & Kang Wei Kay 
50 Wendell Street #2 
san Francisco, CA 94124 

Larry Wontarano 
50 Wendell Street #3 
San Francisco, CA y'^i'^'* 

Western Pacific RR Co. 

849 Army Street 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

Victor Furtado 

776 Beale Street 

San Francisco. CA 94106 

TT^erv^lo^ent Agency 
V39'e1Us Street 4t^ noo. 

San Francisco. CA 94109 

Uer, Russel & Evelyn TRS 
Call an, Stroud & Dale 
35 Sansome Street 
in Francisco. CA 94104 

ianta Fe Land Improvement Co. 
1 Santa Fe PZ #316 
3200 East Sheila Street 
Los Angeles. CA 90040